In 1964, the Kitty Genovese’s Murder case, it was likely to be a tragedy. This incident sparked off the many social psychologists’ interests over the question: “What could have prevented people from at least calling for police?”

John Darley from New York University and Bibb Latane of Columbia (1968), both social psychologists in their research study, “Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility” and examined the psychology area of prosocial behavior. In addition, they regarded the unwillingness behavior of bystanders to offer help during emergencies as bystander intervention. Both suggested that the failure to help could have related to the number of people present at the scene of crime. Moreover, they concluded that diffusion of responsibility could have been the problem to answer the question. As the number of bystanders in an emergency increases, the number of people reporting the case will decrease. Thus, there is a negative relationship between the number of bystanders in an emergency and a person responsibility to report. Their initial research work on bystander effect has been influential to a wide range of studies (Darley, and, Latane, 1968, 377 – 383).

However, their research did not involve much discussion about other possible considering characteristics; different individual varies from gender, to personality. I believed that Man has an important social role in helping. Thus, Man should help a Woman when she is in need.

From the perspective of personality variables, it is believed that researchers had a hard time predicting bystander intervention (Darley & Latane, 1968). Kahn (1984) suggested that in recent social psychology textbooks, personality has little or no relevance to bystander helping (Kahn, 1984, 217). On the other hand, personality variable like masculine might influence one perception that a person who is highly masculine would likely intervene in an emergency. Tice and, Baumeister (1985) found that subjects who are highly masculine were less likely to intervene in an emergency than others. Masculine functions are seems as a preventing factor in willingness to help in emergency situations. Masculine subjects are unwilling to help maybe because they are fear of embarrassment. Moreover, they may pay more attention to their own overall image in emergency situations than others who are low in masculine (Tice, M.D., & Baumeister, F.R., 1985, 420 – 428).

The finding of their experiment shows that personality factor of masculine can influence a bystander’s decision whether to help or not help in emergency situations. However, this cannot be a solid explanation that masculinity affects individuality helpfulness. Then again, it is not convincing to ignore the fact that personality is unrelated to helping out in emergencies (Tice, M.D., & Baumeister, F.R. 1985, 420 – 428). For example, comparing individual differences between an American and Chinese man from difference cultural background; which a Chinese culture emphasizing on togetherness and American culture about individual and independence. There is a strong difference between both type of people when it comes to considering the results; as one might likely to predict is that a Chinese man will be more likely to help as compared to an American man in an emergency situation. Most importantly, must consider the results carefully; taking in consideration of participants’ background such as their cultural background. It is most likely to influence the way a person makes decision and their responsiveness to help.

Another example of personality, guilt could to some extent influence a person helping behavior. Salovey, Mayer & Rosenhan (1991) demonstrated that guilt can likely lead a person to increase possibility to help.

In examining the interaction between gender and condition (non-social vs. social) on helping behavior, it has found that there is a marginally significant between both variables. The condition variable is likely to facilitate in predictions of a person helping behavior; this is in line with the classical bystander effect. It is a social condition, where the subjects will notice that there are other people around. It caused the subjects less likely to help due to the “diffusion of responsibility” (Darley, and, Latane, 1968, 377 – 383) than when they are alone (Karakashian, L.M., Walter, M.I., Christopher, A.N., and Lucas, T., 2006 13 – 32).

For gender variable, it is also a marginal predictor of helping behavior. It is an idea natural thing that men in social condition to help women out of heroic acts. This holds up by their gender role. It is found out that men helped more females than they did for males. One of the possible reasoning could be sex role stereotypes. It can influence a man behavior to produce a heroic act of helping a woman in need. Especially for male participants, in a social condition which they were considered the minority. It means that all man should help to show case their heroism to the women at scene, therefore, they are more likely to intervene in an emergency situation. This finding further affirmed social role theory of helping (Eagly and Crowley, 1986, 283 – 308).

However, it is quite hard to say whether men are more helpful than women, more importantly, “the size and direction of sex differences should be a product of situational variables that determine what social roles are salient in particular situations” (Eagly and Crowley, 1986, p.286).

I reconciles that Individual personality and gender differences, to some extent have influential effects on one helping behaviors.

Levine, M. & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.95, no. 6, 1429 – 1439.